1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to protective gear for the human torso; and more specifically, it relates to those class of protective garments serving to obviate crushing loads imposed upon the wearer's upper-abdomen/thorax region from causing suffocating impairment of their breathing.
2. Prior Patent-Art
Background research discovery provides other prior patent-art regarded as germane. Chronologically for example, U.S. Pat. No. 989,530 (issued: April 1911) and U.S. Pat. No. 2,034,637(issued: March 1936) for underwater diving-suit apparatus worn by a persons engaging in work while subject to generally torso-crushing water-loads, which could substantially impair ones ability to breath. However, both inventions include full very-heavy body(and head) protection, which could not possibly be donned without assistance by others; and not designed to be hinged-apart for convenience.
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,162,861(filed: January 1963) is shown a "baseball batter's chest-protector" for shielding the wearer's upper/frontal-thorax (especially the heart region) from a severe external blow. Although not suspended from the shoulders, the resilient light-weight molded-plastic sheet-material backed by foam-rubber is secured to the user via a girth-adjustable horizontal-strap & buckle device extending around the user's back. However, there is no provision by which the invention could aid in preventing a surrounding crushing-load from immobilizing the wearer's breathing functions.
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,452,362(filed: April 1967) is shown a "torso armor-carrier" apparatus to be worn by a person such as a helicopter-pilot subject to flying a low-altitudes where they are vulnerable to small-arms ground fire. In order to reduce the surface-area (and commensurate weight) of armor-plate, the flackjacket invention admirably obviates aircraft armor-plate structure in favor of that which can be borne by the pilot themself. However, there is no provision by which the invention could aid in prevent breathing impairment owing to some manner of torso imposed crushing load from opposite sides to the body.
In the perhaps most relevant U.S. Pat. No. 3,777,309(filed: March 1972), is shown a "safety garment structure" conceived to be adopted by the construction-industry. The 2-piece loose fitting rigid garment has myriad perforations for air-circulation; plus unfortunately, a large entrapping hole for wearer's neck, and entrapping holes for both arms. Constructed of solid cast metal(or plastic), the front and back panels pivot together from one side via a piano-hinge, while extending rigidly up over one's shoulders where interposing-fingers interlock the two panels; as is done on the side opposite the hinge, where it is closed via a non-adjustable latch. However praiseworthy an effort to protect a worker, the apparatus failed to provide a structure which could be worn comfortably for an extended period of time; thereby failing to fulfill industrial need for an anti-crush safety garment like article.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,425,667(filed: January 1984) and No. 5,524,641(field: November 1994) are shown similar "protective-vest apparatus", both of which teach protective paneling which extends up and over the shoulders for suspension from the body. The earlier embodiment being devised particularly for wearing by motorcyclists, watercraft, snowmobile, and rodeo-riders; while the latter embodiment more addresses a need among intense contact-sports, such as football and hockey players. The respective apparatus both address the purpose of absorbing and dispersing otherwise traumatic impacts from objects to the torso; the earlier embodiment via more traditional materials such as contour molded 1/8 inch gauge ABS(acronitrile-butadiene-styrene)-plastic panels internally-backed by 1/2 inch gauge closed-cell foam such as ENSOLITE.RTM.. The latter embodiment differing particularly in that it sets forth a more high-tech paneling construction, such as myriad honeycomb or myriad geodesic-dome structural entities extending out to form the paneling. However, neither embodiment anticipates the need to protect a wearer form a crushing-load imposed from opposite sides of the body.
Finally, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,306,557(filed: February 1992) is shown best in FIG. 8 revealing a type of "composite hard-body tactical-armor" which is shown packaged much as a vest fitting close to the wearer's body without significant allowance for air-circulation and chest expansion. Because the structure is substantially flexible in nature, the illustration go indicates the wearer can avulse a hook-&-loop fastened overlapping side-panel and likewise one of the portions extending up and over the shoulders, in order to actually slip the protective garment on laterally. However, once so donned, the vest offers no apparent functional resistance to withstanding a crushing load imposed upon opposite sides (or upon all sides) of the torso.